In re Bowdoin's Estate
Decision Date | 03 July 1916 |
Citation | 98 A. 514 |
Parties | In re BOWDOIN'S ESTATE. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Orphans' Court, Union County.
Intermediate accounting by the executor of the estate of Hannah L. Bowdoin, deceased. From a decree allowing the account, Harriet L. Biggs, claiming to be an adopted child of deceased, appeals. Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of Connolly, J., in the orphans' court:
This matter comes up on the presentation of an intermediate account of the executor of Hannah L. Bowdoin, deceased, in which the executor asks for a partial distribution of the estate of the testatrix, amongst the persons entitled thereto. Harriet L. Biggs, who claims to be entitled to participate in the distributive estate, as an adopted daughter of testatrix, excepts to the allowance of a gift of $2,000, made to Benjamin C. Mead, by the testatrix, on August 27, 1914. The executor contends that the exceptant has no standing before the court, for the reason that she was not an adopted daughter of the testatrix, and is in no way entitled to participate in her estate.
The following facts, upon which the exceptant bases her claim to have been an adopted child of the testatrix, have been submitted to the court: On June 30, 1866, an indenture, which has been admitted in evidence, was made, between the "American Female Guardian Society, of New York City," of the first part, and Mr. James W. and H. Louise Bowdoin, of the city of Rahway, N. J., of the second part. The indenture sets forth that Charity Ann Johnson, a female child (now known by her marriage name, as Harriet L. Biggs), of the age of 2 years on October 19, 1865, was surrendered to the said society, and that the parties of the second part had applied to the manager of the society to put out and place the said child with them, by adoption and as an apprentice, until she should arrive at the age of 18 years. The indenture then sets forth that the said society has —and further reads as follows: "Although the present instrument binds the above-named child strictly as an apprentice, it is, nevertheless, the true intention of the parties of the first part to place, and of the parties of the second part to receive, said apprentice as an adopted child, to reside in the family of the party of the second part, and to be maintained, clothed, educated and treated, as far as practicable, with like care and kindness, as if she were in fact the child of the party of the second part." The indenture also provides that if the apprentice, or either of the parties to its execution, should become dissatisfied in any wise with the contract, or the situation or employment under it, such indenture should cease and become void.
The indenture was executed by the society on June 30, 1866, and appears to have been acknowledged on February 10, 1868. A duplicate of the indenture, except as to acknowledgments and the county clerk's certificate, was executed by the party of the second part on June 30, 1866, and was acknowledged on June 20, 1867, in Union county, N. J., before Edward X. Rogers, a master in chancery, and the county clerk's certificate, certifying to the official character of the master, was attached to the acknowledgment.
The question now before the court is this: Did the indenture work an adoption of the child by the parties of the second part? Adoption of children was unknown to the common law, and no law was in existence, in either New Jersey or New York, changing or altering the common law, at the time when the indenture was executed. This was known to the parties who signed the indenture, and I am of the opinion that the indenture did not provide for anything more than the binding out of Charity Ann Johnson (the exceptant), to the testatrix and her husband, until she was 18 years of age. During the period intervening between the date of the indenture and the time when the indentured child reached 18...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greaves v. Fogel
...the contrary expressed by Chief Justice Gray in the leading case of Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243 (1880). Cf. In re Bowdoin's Estate, 87 N.J.Eq. 368, 369, 98 A. 514 (E. & A. 1917). He stressed the fact that many persons with lawfully adopted and legitimated children come to us from foreign st......
-
In re Martin
... ... On petition for the purpose of obtaining a release or relinquishment of dower of Cornelia G. Martin in the estate of Luther Martin, deceased, and for reference. Ordered that order to show cause be personally served on dowress ... Alfred S. March, ... ...